Appeal No. 2005-2731 3
Application No. 10/656,040
Claims 28, 37, 38 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kulakowski in view of Stefansky.
Claims 45 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kulakowski in view of Stefansky as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Kim.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the above-noted rejections and
the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the answer (mailed May 4, 2005) for the examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (filed April 25, 2005) and
reply brief (filed June 10, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007